at last

[Guest]

I was getting worried with the down turn in the world econemy, but doubt even brown can back owt now ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7486683.stm

[Werner]

Given that the contractor for final assembly is Halliburton, I doubt they can back out without a huge financial hit.

[Dave Wooley]

Given that the contractor for final assembly is Halliburton, I doubt they can back out without a huge financial hit.

I'll drink to that. I'm still smarting from the CV-01 debacle !
Dave Wooley

[Gerarddm]

Halliburton, really? I would have thought the Brits had the capacity to do the thing in-house.

[Ultimo Tiger]

So we can finally start building them. Good.

Although the point that the women made was a good one. More money does need to go to equipment in Iraq as well.

If only we could defraud a big rich country out of their money...............................

Just out of curiosity, could the F-35 also operate off the Invincible class if needed? I assumed the F-35 would be in service before long not until after 2016.

[Guest]

Halliburton, really? I would have thought the Brits had the capacity to do the thing in-house.

Yes i'd be intrested to know why Halliburton are doing it, espesially considering the finall assembly will be done in scotland. I recon it might be slightly political ?? (or coruptable )

[Dave Wooley]

So we can finally start building them. Good.

Although the point that the women made was a good one. More money does need to go to equipment in Iraq as well.

If only we could defraud a big rich country out of their money...............................

Just out of curiosity, could the F-35 also operate off the Invincible class if needed? I assumed the F-35 would be in service before long not until after 2016.

Its been quoted that the CVFs could be in service before the JFS. Looks as though the Harrier will have to solider on for some time yet. As for the question of JSF being able to operate off the Invincible class that may well be academic. As far as Military spending is concerned . There is never enough to go round. It could be argued that if the RN had its CV-01 then the Falklands would not have happened?.
Dave Wooley

[Werner]

Halliburton is the only contractor in Britain with experience assembling an object of this size from it's components.

No doubt they are all British workers at the dock.

Sorry.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/busin ... itain.html

[phil gollin]

Halliburton is the only contractor in Britain with experience assembling an object of this size from it's components.

No doubt they are all British workers at the dock.

Sorry.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/busin ... itain.html

I think you have all missed the real point. Like the defence industry (BAE for example) the Petrochemical Construction/Heavy Engineering industry is a very mixed up industry. The company really doing the work is Kelloggs/Brown & Root - an old British heavy engineering firm taken over by Kelloggs/Haliburton (much like CBI owns Kvaerner who took over John Browns who took over Davy McKee).

[chuck]

I think you have all missed the real point. Like the defence industry (BAE for example) the Petrochemical Construction/Heavy Engineering industry is a very mixed up industry. The company really doing the work is Kelloggs/Brown & Root - an old British heavy engineering firm taken over by Kelloggs/Haliburton (much like CBI owns Kvaerner who took over John Browns who took over Davy McKee).

I am afraid if Kelloggs Brown & Root has any significant British ancestry, it is trying hard to hide it:

http://www.kbr.com/corporate/kbr_history/index.aspx

[Werner]

The plain fact is that in projects of this magnitude your choices are Halliburton (USA), Schlumberger (Netherlands/France), Baker-Hughes/BJ Services (Yes, THAT Hughes).

When Mr. Rumsfeld chose Halliburton in 2003 for the Iraq recovery, I wondered why everyone popped an o-ring when the only real alternative was an equally corrupt French corporation. As you may recall, at the time the French, Germans and Russians were the major obsticles to the Iraq war, but were first in line to complain when the US Government did not hand out any lucrative contracts post-war. I thought, "how completely amoral and principle free for the French Ambassador to the USA to complain about this."

[Deckard]

Are they the ships you're going to share with France?

[Werner]

I think he meant oil wells, water supplies, large buildings, bridges, roads and such.

[phil gollin]

I think you have all missed the real point. Like the defence industry (BAE for example) the Petrochemical Construction/Heavy Engineering industry is a very mixed up industry. The company really doing the work is Kelloggs/Brown & Root - an old British heavy engineering firm taken over by Kelloggs/Haliburton (much like CBI owns Kvaerner who took over John Browns who took over Davy McKee).

I am afraid if Kelloggs Brown & Root has any significant British ancestry, it is trying hard to hide it:

http://www.kbr.com/corporate/kbr_history/index.aspx

Not correct - like Bectel, Fluor and Foster Wheelers - they all have large British subsiduries which did the work in British influenced areas, or places where the US either weren't welcome or didn't care to be seen.

E.G. the local Leatherhead/Kingston/Wimbledon offices were the headquarters for the Brown & Root work on the Libyan "Great Manmade River" project because of US sanctions on Libya - as I said (and you failed to appreciate) the industry is very mixed up.

.

[Dave Wooley]

This may shed some light on the complex nature of naval ship building in Europe including the UK.EU Clears Thales, DCN Shipbuilding Combo
Friday, March 23, 2007

France's two main warship makers, DCN and Thales SA, won EU approval to combine their shipbuilding businesses, boosting the prospect of wider consolidation in Europe's fragmented naval sector. The French government has backed the deal, in which state-owned naval shipyard DCN is buying Thales' shipbuilding activities in France _ excluding its parts-making business. Thales has taken a 25 percent stake in DCN, with the option of raising the stake to 35 percent over the next two years.
The European Commission said its investigation showed the deal would not cause antitrust problems because the two already cooperate closely and a number of effective rivals would remain standing. Thales had already sold most of its naval equipment business to DCN before the deal, it said, meaning that any new changes would be limited and there was little chance of the combined company choking supply to rivals. DCN will acquire Thales' naval assets, including its stakes in their existing joint ventures, Armaris and MOPA2 _ the unit established to build a second aircraft carrier for the French navy. Thales paid around $180m for a 25 percent stake in DCN, valuing the company at euro2.8 billion $3.4b. The French state currently owns a 75 percent stake in DCN, and held 31 percent of Thales when the deal was announced on Dec. 15.

Unlike the military aerospace sector, concentrated around Britain's BAE Systems PLC and Airbus' Franco-German parent, European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., Europe's warship building industry remains fragmented and inefficient. But any attempt to build a European giant to rival U.S. warship maker Northrop Grumman Corp. would be fraught with political problems _ not least of which would be the prospect of widespread shipyard restructuring and job cuts. Source: Houston Chronicle

[Dave Wooley]

To add to what has been said so far.
Flagship �3bn carrier deal for BAE and VT
By Sylvia Pfeifer, Defence Industries Correspondent

Published: July 3 2008 23:56 | Last updated: July 3 2008 23:56

BAE Systems and VT Group have won the lion�s share of the �3bn manufacturing �contract signed on Thursday to build the UK�s biggest ever aircraft carriers.

The two flagship carriers will contribute about �3bn to the order book of the two companies, which have signed a joint venture covering their shipbuilding �operations.

EDITOR�S CHOICE
Ministers set to approve aircraft carriers - May-10Fighter aircraft to miss the boat - Mar-25Royal Navy�s aircraft carriers face delay - Feb-21Navy�s new carriers to deploy old aircraft - Jan-30MoD offered �100m saving on carriers - Jan-21Shipbuilding unions fear delays may hit jobs - Jan-18Des Browne, the defence secretary, speaking at BAE�s Govan yard on the River Clyde, called it a �historic day for everyone in defence�. The contract, which was signed on board HMS Ark Royal, is expected to secure 10,000 UK jobs.

The contract, said Mr Browne, �ensures that we will have a Royal Navy fit for the 21st century�.

The two carriers are being built by an industry alliance that also includes Babcock International and Thales UK. The BAE and VT joint venture, BVT Surface Fleet, will receive an initial �1.3bn for constructing huge sections of the ships.

BAE will separately receive �300m for additional work at its yard in Barrow.

The �3bn contract is worth �675m to Babcock, which is building the bow section and assembling the ships at its Rosyth yard. Thales, which originally bid against BAE to build the ships, is in line for �425m for design and engineering work.

The MoD reiterated that the ships were still due in service in 2014 and 2016 � despite a delay of more than six months to the signing of the contract.

The carriers have raised serious misgivings among some parts of the military about the huge financial burden they are placing on the already stretched defence budget. The ships will eventually carry the new Joint Strike Fighter aircraft but will not be ready on time for when they enter service.

The two carriers will be HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

Each will be 280m long and will be taller than Nelson�s Column; each weighs the equivalent of 32,500 family cars and their diesel and gas turbines will produce enough power to run a town the size of Swindon.